The scope is clarified to serve as a stable default for reliable document interchange.

The svo property is removed because supporting multiple styles and scripts is out of scope for document interchange.

This decision is definitely a mistake.

UTR#50 tries to define the default width and orientation of characters. But the width and orientation of glyph should be treated independently from character code.

I understand that this is the principle of Unicode.

As for Japanese vertical writing, many western origin characters and symbols may have two different kinds of glyph about its width and orientation. One is proportional and sideways in a western text, the other is full width and upright in a Japanese vertical text and the behavior is similar to Japanese original character.

This is clearly stated in such as JIS X4051 and other textbooks about Japanese vertical writing.

The actual width and orientation of glyph, i.e. behavior of a single character, is determined depending on the style and context. It is impossible to determine actual width and orientation of glyph without style and context in Japanese vertical writing.

UTR#50 wrests the flexibility to specify various styles from Japanese vertical writing system and brings a serious constraints into it.

Again, UTC made a wrong decision. It will be impossible to exchange width and orientation of glyph without style and context. UTR#50 will bring the serious disadvantage into Japanese vertical writing.

Finally, I hereby request to delete my name from Acknowledgments.

Regards,

Tokushige KobayashiAntenna House, Inc.

[Reference]10月22日「縦組み時の文字の向き―その理論とマークアップ方法」の発表予定資料をプレビュー ( The orientation of glyph in vertical writing - its theory and strategy of markup. Materials and presentation. )http://blog.cas-ub.com/?p=3449* I am sorry this is in Japanese.

First of all, I'm not sure if I fully understand all what you said. Sorry if there were any misunderstanding in advance.

TKobayashi wrote:

UTR#50 tries to define the default width and orientation of characters. But the width and orientation of glyph should be treated independently from character code.

UTR#50 defines orientations, but it does not define width.

TKobayashi wrote:

I understand that this is the principle of Unicode.

As for Japanese vertical writing, many western origin characters and symbols may have two different kinds of glyph about its width and orientation. One is proportional and sideways in a western text, the other is full width and upright in a Japanese vertical text and the behavior is similar to Japanese original character.

This is clearly stated in such as JIS X4051 and other textbooks about Japanese vertical writing.

It looks to me that you're talking about FULL WIDTH. FULL WIDTH code points are upright.

TKobayashi wrote:

The actual width and orientation of glyph, i.e. behavior of a single character, is determined depending on the style and context. It is impossible to determine actual width and orientation of glyph without style and context in Japanese vertical writing.

I agree with you. Since the actual orientations cannot be determined without a style as you said, and since style is out of scope for Unicode, such style variations should be defined in high-level protocols. With a stable orientation set defined in UTR#50, high-level protocols can define their own orientations, while maintaining the interchange between such protocols.

For instance, MS Word and OOXML defines their own orientations. By describing differences from UTR#50, the orientation can interchange with other protocols. Unicode does not prevent applications or high-level protocols to define styles, and is about interchange of information.

UTR#50 tries to define the default width and orientation of characters. But the width and orientation of glyph should be treated independently from character code.

UTR#50 defines orientations, but it does not define width.

UTR#50 ostensibly defines the orientation of characters, it also substantively defines the width of characters. For example, if you define the orientation of A as upright, it is substantively equal to define not only it's orientation but also the width of A as Full Width. And if you define A as sideways, it is substantively equal to define not only it's orientation but also the width of A as proportional. The reason is: Japanese Typesetting treats upright western character as Full Width according to JIS X4051 etc.

kojiishi wrote:

TKobayashi wrote:

As for Japanese vertical writing, many western origin characters and symbols may have two different kinds of glyph about its width and orientation. One is proportional and sideways in a western text, the other is full width and upright in a Japanese vertical text and the behavior is similar to Japanese original character.

This is clearly stated in such as JIS X4051 and other textbooks about Japanese vertical writing.

It looks to me that you're talking about FULL WIDTH. FULL WIDTH code points are upright.

Full width or proportional is a property of glyph but not a character, ASCII characters may take both Full Width or proportional shape.

The glyph of such characters as Extended Latin, Greek, Cyrille and non-ASCII symbols etc, may also take both Full Width or proportional shape depending on the orientation. But these characters are assigned only one code-point for each of them.

Regards,

Tokushige KobayashiAntenna House, Inc.

Last edited by TKobayashi on Fri Nov 02, 2012 5:54 pm, edited 3 times in total.

With a stable orientation set defined in UTR#50, high-level protocols can define their own orientations, while maintaining the interchange between such protocols.

For instance, MS Word and OOXML defines their own orientations. By describing differences from UTR#50, the orientation can interchange with other protocols.

This is your concept, but I think this is an inefficient architecture. At worst case, it will be necessary to specify the "differences" for each position of characters. It may easy for MS Words, but is not efficient for a markup text such as XHTML.

kojiishi wrote:

Unicode does not prevent applications or high-level protocols to define styles, and is about interchange of information.

Vertical writing is a generic style. More specifically speaking, there are three kinds of vertical style in Japanese vertical writing: newspaper style, traditional style and modern style.

Newspaper style treats all western-origin characters similar to Japanese Characters, that is upright and Full width, traditional style basically treats western-origin characters as sideways and proportional and modern style is at the middle of both ends.

If UTR#50 tries to exchange any style, it needs both SVO-like data and traditional-MVO data.

By deleting SVO and with meaningless (?) MVO, what does UTR#50 try to exchange?

For interchange of information only, UTR#50 itself would be unnecessary. The contents do not needs any style.

This is your concept, but I think this is an inefficient architecture. At worst case, it will be necessary to specify the "differences" for each position of characters. It may easy for MS Words, but is not efficient for a markup text such as XHTML.

This is your concept, but I think this is an inefficient architecture. At worst case, it will be necessary to specify the "differences" for each position of characters. It may easy for MS Words, but is not efficient for a markup text such as XHTML.

You are now the editor of UTR#50, and you are also leading the CSS WG regarding Writing modes.

From the minutes of CSS WG, it seems to me that you forced to make the members to agree with you.

Anyway, Antenna House experimentally implemented SVO and MVO (Yamamoto style). With the implementation, I already showed the Unicode UTR#50 architecture is not efficient at the presentation with simple evidence.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Quick-mod tools:

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum